Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aetiology (blog)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete per a rough consensus for deletion as well as the arguments for deletion outweighing the sole argument for retention, which was also refuted. –MuZemike 00:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Aetiology (blog)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This blog seems to fail WP:WEB. I do not think that the coverage it has received meets any of the three prongs of WEB as it was trivial or appeared in other blogs. Perhaps most notable among its coverage was that Nature rated it #7 of science blogs written by scientists for the general public based on Technorati hits. But Nature only actually profiled the top five (and only put the full list online). At that time, the blog was listed as number 4,989 by Technocrati. It also received a profile on a med student blogsite hosted by WebMD, but this does not seem to be the sort of source, especially alone, that would meet WP:WEB. Novaseminary (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete taking Novaseminary at face value. "Was mentioned in [list]" is a basic admission of not asserting notability. JJB 02:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep that Nature listed it 7th in its list of most used popular science blogs is notability. It's hard to think of a better source.    DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment But the magazine didn't list it in print or in the article. The full list only appeared in an online appendix (here) to the article. It was seventh on the list based on criteria the Nature author devised using Technorati stats. The Nature article profiled the top five, not this blog. Per the actual article: "Out of 46.7 million blogs indexed by the Technorati blog search engine, five scientists' sites make it into the top 3,500. Declan Butler asks the winners about the reasons for their success." This blog was not a "winner". The Nature article's author only thought the first five were notable enough to revceive profiles or even mentions in the article. On what basis would you disagree? What about numbers 6 and 8, or number 17? Appearance alone on this list cannot be enough, can it? Novaseminary (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.